HC Deb 30 April 1931 vol 251 cc1853-69
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden)

I beg to move, That, notwithstanding anything in the established practice of this House lo the contrary, provision may be made in the Finance Bill of the present Session for giving effect to any Resolution which may be passed in the Committee of Ways and Means, and agreed to by this House, for imposing a tax on Land Values although the tax is not to come into operation until a subsequent financial year. 4.0 p.m.

The Motion which I have to submit to the House can be explained quite adequately, I think, in a few sentences. In the Budget speech and in the answer which the Prime Minister gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) last Tuesday, an explanation has already been given of the circumstances in which it became necessary to frame this Resolution. But, perhaps, I may be allowed to recapitulate and amplify the information which I gave in Committee of Ways and Means. In 1909, an attempt was made to carry out land valuation and taxation simultaneously. In the light of what happened then, and on general grounds of practicability, I have come to the conclusion that it would be courting disaster to repeat that attempt, and I am, therefore, proposing that the first step should be that of making the necessary valuation, to be followed by the assessment and collection of the tax in a later year when that valuation has been substantially completed.

I, accordingly, propose to include the necessary provisions both for valuation and the imposition of the tax in the Finance Bill of this year. As a result, it will be possible to proceed with the work of valuation as soon as the Finance Bill passes into law, and as the work of valuation will occupy a considerable time, I intend that the tax should become chargeable for the first time, not in the current financial year, but in respect of the year 1933–34, by which time we hope the valuation will have been completed. Members will recall that last year I introduced a Bill designed to make the valuation provisions operative, but time did not permit of the consideration of that Bill by the House. Now that the pro- posal has been revived in conjunction with a scheme of taxation, it is obvious that it is of the utmost importance that the two matters, that is, valuation and the imposition of the tax, should be dealt with together as a whole. But it may be asked why not in a separate Bill? Well, many answers could be given to that. I see that some of the newspapers have assumed that the real purpose of this Resolution is to insure that these land proposals will have a safe passage to their destined haven. If that result is assured by this Resolution I should regard it as an additional recommendation. It is surely the duty of the Government, before they embark upon a Measure, to be quite sure that its course is clear, and that the Bill does not encounter rocks and shoals.

For the moment I will content myself with saying that the scheme is an integral part of our financial programme of the year; indeed, the most important part of our financial programme. Last year I intended to do what I now propose, that is, to include provisions for both valuation and taxation in the Finance Bill. But that Bill was long, and contained a considerable number of highly controversial subjects, and if I had added to the Bill another controversial issue, then what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) calls "the legitimate resources of Parliamentary obstruction" might have prevented the Finance Bill from passing this House within the dates prescribed by the Gibson Bowles Act. That would have resulted, of course, in complete financial chaos. Being prevented from including these proposals in the Finance Bill of last year, I expressed my intention of introducing a separate Valuation Bill, and, in the end, although the Bill was introduced, the pressure of Parliamentary time prevented it from being proceeded with. On further consideration it seems to me to have been rather a mistake to introduce a Valuation Bill, apart from the taxation proposals for which the Bill is required. You cannot dissociate the creation of machinery from the purpose for which the machinery has to be used, and it is entirely fitting that the Measure which sets up the machinery should also lay down and indicate the purpose for which that machinery has to be provided.

Acoordingly, if the Finance Bill is the proper Measure in which to introduce proposals for the imposition of this taxation, it is unquestionably the proper place for the creation of the machinery for the purpose of the taxation which is to be imposed. Moreover, apart from this, it will be an obvious economy of Parliamentary time to include not only the two things, valuation and imposition of taxation, but the rest of our proposals in the same Bill. Here we are met with a difficulty of procedure. The practice of this House is that in any year the Finance Bill is regarded as the vehicle for the taxation of that year, and, therefore, in general it might be held that a tax should not be imposed in any year unless it becomes operative in that year. This practice is possibly in ordinary circumstances a prudent one, but it seems to me not to provide for a case in which, although the tax is not immediately operative, its indispensable preliminary machinery must be set at work at once, and the procedure now proposed is to meet this difficulty.

The Motion which I now propose is solely concerned with this point of procedure, and it would not, I imagine, be in order to go beyond this point, but if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that if this Motion is passed by the House, there will appear on the Order Paper to-morrow the actual terms of the necessary Ways and Means Resolution. It will be of a wide and general character. When the actual proposals of the Government are before the House, it will be seen that this wideness is subject to certain qualifications. What those qualifications will be I shall set out in the exposition of the proposals which, if the House passes this Motion, I shall make in moving the Ways and Means Resolution on Monday next.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT

This is one of those happy occasions when we are debating a matter of some importance and some interest, and one which is not likely to raise any angry passions or become in any way, I hope, a party question. We cannot on this Resolution discuss the question of the proposed land values taxation. We are merely discussing the question of procedure. Of course, we on this side of the House regard the present Government as a set of highway robbers, and, although we do not know exactly what their proposals are, we have a shrewd suspicion that they may turn out to be a scheme of highway robbery. In the meantime it will be my duty—and I shall not shrink from it—to congratulate the Government and the right hon. Gentleman upon, the fact that on this occasion they are behaving like the high-class gentlemen of the road rather than the villains of the lower type. When those picturesque persons, mounted on swift horses, with masks and pistols, patrolled the roads, there was a standard of honour among some of them; they plied their trade according to certain codes of honour.

On this occasion, the Government have shown by their intention to found these proposals upon a Ways and Means Resolution this year, that they are—whether of their own free-will or under duress, I cannot say—at any rate, following a course which is the correct one, and correct in a very important manner in regard to the control of this House over expenditure. This has not always been followed on previous occasions. Speaking from the back benches I may, perhaps, say that in the past there have been highway robbers in this party as well as in other parties, and this is an occasion on which I am speaking, I hope, for private and unofficial Members of this House, rather than for any Front Bench Members on either side.

I hope that when I come to move the Amendment which stands in my name to the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution—at the end to add the words, "to be hereafter determined by Parliament"—I shall have the support of hon. Members on the back benches opposite as well as on this side. I know that I shall have the support of hon. Members on the Liberal benches because they are the purest of the pure and theirs is a party which contains no highway robbers—not having had any opportunity lately. I think that for the proper understanding of this Motion we must refer to the nature of the Resolution which it would affect, namely, a Financial Resolution in Ways and Means, for the purpose of sanctioning the machinery and imposition of a tax which is not to be levied in the current financial year. Three years ago when the change-over was made from Super-tax to Surtax, there was another occasion when it was necessary, if the business was to be done properly, that what may be called the machinery Clause should be enacted a year before the tax came to be imposed. On that occasion the question was raised whether the proposal ought not to be supported by a Ways and Means Resolution. It was not so supported and the defence for not having a Ways and Means Resolution then was that such a Resolution would not be required until we came to consider the Finance Bill of the actual year in which the tax was to be levied.

It will be within the recollection of hon. Members who were in the House at that time and who took an interest in procedure that the matter was gone into carefully. The decision under which it was held that a Resolution was not necessary then, was based upon a prior Ruling given by the late Speaker of this House. I know I am not saying anything which is a breach of confidence or anything which one ought not to say in public, when I state that the late Speaker of this House, whose knowledge of Parliamentary procedure was very great, himself regretted the Ruling which he had given and the extent to which it had been applied. I think everybody who discussed the matter came to the conclusion that the practice of imposing a tax and setting up machinery for a tax, without a Financial Resolution, simply on the ground that the tax was not to be levied until a subsequent year, was a practice which could not be continued. Therefore I think one ought to congratulate the Government upon having taken a course which is calculated to maintain that control, which is so valuable, of the House of Commons over expenditure, and over the executive Government of the day.

The Resolution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes is, as he says, intended to deal with the difficulty which has arisen through the practice, or the alleged practice of this House that the Finance Bill should only deal with the finances of the year. In my opinion, and I could quote many precedents to support it, that practice of late years has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. That rule or practice, whichever it may be called, is not based on our Standing Orders. It is not of the same importance as the question to which I have been referring hitherto of having a preliminary Financial Resolution, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognises, if I understood him aright, that, generally speaking, and within certain limits, it is right that the Finance Bill of the year should be confined to the finance of that year. On this occasion he says that these proposals, although they are not actually to levy a tax in this year, are an integral part of the Government's financial proposals for the year. In these complex days that is a position which is likely to recur over and over again, and, therefore, as far as the purpose of this Resolution is concerned, I think it is perfectly correct. Again, I say that the Government are to be congratulated upon doing their highway robbery, if that is how we regard it, according to a high code.

May I refer to the only two recent Rulings in support of this practice as to the Finance Bill applying only to the finance of the year? In 1914 there was a Ruling, not a very satisfactory one, but at least it amounted to the obiter dictum that the Finance Bill must not deal with anything outside the finance of the year. In 1927, however, a very definite Ruling was given from the Chair ruling out of order certain Amendments to the Finance Bill because they had nothing to do with the finance of that year but dealt with the imposition of taxation in future years. I said just now that I thought that this practice had recently been honoured more in the breach than the observance. It is a curious thing that in the case I have just mentioned, when the Ruling was given that those Amendments were out of order for the reason stated, the whole of one very large and important part of the Finance Bill, namely, all the provisions relating to the change over from Super-tax to Surtax and the imposition of the Surtax was not concerned with the imposition of a tax for that exact year. Yet that machinery was allowed to go without any Financial Resolution to support it, and in spite of the fact that it dealt with something outside the finances of that year. That, to my mind, proves that some procedure of this kind to enable the Finance Bill to go beyond dealing strictly with the finances of the year is necessary. I now come to the Amendment which stands in my name—

Mr. SPEAKER

I did not propose to take the hon. Member's Amendment. This does not seem to be the right place at which to move it. It would be more suitable to move it, either on the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means or on the Finance Bill instead of on this Resolution.

Sir D. HERBERT

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that intimation. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer at any rate to the intention behind the Amendment, and, possibly, when you have heard my explanation, I may ask you even to go so far as to reconsider your decision upon that point. What I was going to say was that the Chancellor himself has recognised that the rune of confining the Finance Bill of the year to the finances of the year is, within certain limits, a very necessary and proper rule, and he is proposing this Resolution to enable the Committee of Ways and Means to pass a Resolution on which may be founded legislation for the imposition of a tax, and for setting up all the necessary machinery connected with a tax, not actually to be levied until two years hence. If this kind of practice is to be resorted to in future years, and I think that is likely to happen over and over again, it seems important that we should not depart more than is necessary from that principle of confining the Finance Bill to the finances of the year. If we decide this year to impose a tax, if we pass all the necessary legislation for the machinery of that tax, and if the tax is under the Act passed this year to be levied actually two years hence, it seems to me that inconvenience may be caused, both in Parliament, and in the country among the taxpayers, who will suddenly find the tax levied upon them, without any notice so to speak.

Legislation when it does not, at the moment, touch people's pockets or harm them, or make them feel it in any way, is apt to be quickly forgotten. If legislation of the kind I have indicated is passed this year, people will have forgotten all about it before the year comes round in which the tax is actually to be levied and the tax will be found an even more unpleasant surprise than it would have been if it had been discussed in Parliament in that particular year. My hope in putting down this Amend- ment was that the Resolution might be passed in such a form that it would be necessary, in the year when the tax came to be levied, for Parliament to be reminded of the tax and for something to be put into the Finance Bill of that year—just a line, if it were no more—to the effect, for instance, that the tax imposed by the Act of 1931, would be payable for the year 1934. I regarded my Amendment as such a harmless one and yet so beneficial that I ventured to hope that the Government would have accepted it, and have shown that they intended to continue to live up to that high standard of honour of Dick Turpin and his tribe to which I have already alluded.

I still think, as Resolutions of this kind are likely to be adopted in the future, it would be better, in this Resolution, to make quite certain that in any case of this kind, a tax imposed by legislation of a previous year should be referred to and brought to the notice of Parliament in the Finance Bill of the year in which it is first levied. It is with that object that I desired to move the Amendment, and I suggest that it would be more convenient that it should be attached to this Resolution, rather than to the Ways and Means Resolution in Committee. Of course, if it were attached to this Resolution, it would limit the Ways and Means Resolution in such a way that that Resolution also would have to contain some provision that the actual date of the levying of the tax should be determined by Parliament in the year in which the tax was to be levied.

No one will forget that this Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments, and indeed in practice cannot altogether bind the doings of this Parliament in future, and whatever may be in this Resolution with regard to the future determination that may he taken on any levying of a tax, it is beyond all question that Parliament could alter the date at any time. If this tax were imposed in this year for 1934, Parliament could next year anticipate it and levy it for 1933, or it could defer it in such a way that it should not be levied till 1935. Therefore, all that would be proposed by the Amendment standing in my name would be that this House, recognising that it had power to alter a date, should say that that date should be such as Parliament might hereafter decide. If I may do so on the point of Order, I would like to ask you, Sir, whether you would reconsider your decision as to my Amendment, and whether you would allow me to move it on this Resolution as being preferable to confining it entirely to the Ways and Means Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER

It occurred to me that, if this Amendment were allowed or included, it should be either on the Ways and Means Resolution or preferably in the Finance Bill, which sets up the machinery for the levying of the tax. The hon. Member puts me in some difficulty, because neither of those cases will be under my control, and it is very far from my duty to interfere with the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means as to what Amendments would or would not be in order. All that I can say at the moment is that it does not appear to me to be the proper place to put the Amendment into the Resolution now before the House.

Sir EL HERBERT

It was partly by reason of the difficulty to which you have referred that I thought it better to deal with the Amendment here, because the House is technically the superior body to the Committee, and therefore I thought it would be better that the matter should be dealt with by the House rather than by the Committee. Under the circumstances, I do not wish to dispute your Ruling, and I will close my remarks by saying again that I hope the conduct of the Government in this matter of procedure hitherto will be followed in future. On this occasion at any rate I do not shrink, however unpleasant it may be, from the duty of congratulating the Government on having for once taken the right course.

Captain BOURNE

I do not think anyone listening to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have quite realised that we are making, in the suggestion which he puts before us, a rather big variation of the procedure hitherto adopted. I realise that these questions of procedure appear to some hon. Members opposite to be matters of no importance, but they really are somewhat vital and should not be allowed to pass without comment, because they tend to broaden from one precedent to another, and there is on all of us, no matter which party is in office, a general responsibility to see that any new departures in the procedure of this House do not place hardships on an Opposition or put an undue and unnecessary power in the hands of the Government. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert), I welcome the proposal of the Government, and, as he has said, the old procedure, which is a customary procedure and not one arising out of the Standing Orders—though it is one which was strongly advocated by your predecessor, when he ruled certain Amendments out of order on the Report stage of a Ways and Means Resolution in 1927—is one which under modern conditions cannot always be enforced.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the necessity of valuing the land is an integral part of his scheme for imposing taxation on the land, and as we have no idea as to what will be in the Chancellor's scheme, I do not propose to touch on that subject. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. Until one has seen his scheme it is difficult to understand why he could not have included the valuation Clauses in this year's Finance Bill, and actually brought forward the tax in the year in which he desires to collect it. However, he assures us that that is not possible, and I accept that assurance. It seems to me that in many ways the Resolution of the Government goes far to strengthen the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Whitley in 1927 that a Finance Bill can only deal with taxes imposed for the year, because on this occasion the Government, desiring to include taxation which will not be collected till 1933, have put down this Resolution, which in fact acts as an Instruction to the Committee of Ways and Means enabling them to put in an unusual provision on a special occasion; and it would be very desirable if, whenever it became necessary for any future Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt a similar Measure, and include in his Finance Bill proposals which were not to be operative in the course of that financial year, a similar Resolution should be put on the Paper of the House, and that not only this House but the country should be fully warned as to what the proposals would be.

I only hope that some Chancellor of the Exchequer in the far distant future, after we have agreed to this Resolution to-day and placed on the Journals of the House what must be a very strong precedent, will follow this precedent, and that the House and country will be warned by means of a Financial Resolution of precisely what they are undertaking and what future liabilities will fall on the taxpayer. There is another point, and that is the one raised at the close of his speech by the hon. Member for Watford. I am not certain whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any Member of the Government can at the moment answer this point, but I want to know whether in fact when, in 1933, the actual tax will come to be imposed, it will be necessary either to have a fresh Resolution that year in Ways and Means Committee imposing the tax, or whether it can be done merely by means of a Clause in that year's Finance Bill. I feel that if any case such as this, where this House is imposing taxation which will not fall on the shoulders of its victims for a period of two years, should arise, at least some reminder will be given both to the House and to the victims of that taxation that it will in fact come into operation at that period.

Finally, under this Resolution we are doing what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself frequently admitted to be undesirable. We are perhaps attempting to bind future Parliaments because we are now imposing a tax which will, as I read this Resolution, be operative in 1933 unless some future Parliament takes action. I am not certain whether that is altogether a good innovation in our financial procedure, but, weighing up the good as against the evil in this suggestion, I think that on the whole the Government should be congratulated. I think they have done much to strengthen the practice that the Finance Bill should only contain the taxation of the year, and that they have given special machinery to call attention to the fact that in one special case they are departing from it and asking the sanction of the House so to do.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN

I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to a word of congratulation on making a precedent. I do not think the precedents quoted by the previous speakers are really on all fours with what is happening now, because while it is true that there is a similarity, yet there actually was a tax in the cases quoted, and all that happened was that it assumed a different form; but in this case, I believe for the first time—at least, I can find no precedents—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking power to levy a tax not in the year in which he desires to collect it. Of course, the point about future Parliaments applies to everything. No House of Commons can bind a future House, and the question as to whether this is wise or otherwise will be determined by our successors in future Parliaments. But I am very pleased to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer making a revolution in our Parliamentary procedure, especially as this revolution is a form of words covering a fact, and that fact is an old-fashioned radical idea which has never yet had a fair chance to be worked out in the fiscal system of this country.

It is indeed a precedent. I do not think there is any ruling on all fours with it, and the House should understand that it is a precedent for which, I believe, there is no comparable record in the procedure of the House, and no ruling from the Chair to cover it. But the House exists to make precedents, and this precedent will be discussed in years to come; and I have no doubt whatever that it will be referred to not merely in its form but as to the fact that it will cover, and the terms of that fact the House will have to discuss on Monday and Wednesday next.

Sir HUGH O'NEILL

I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be feeling very pleasantly surprised at the reception which has been accorded to this Resolution on this side of the House, because I imagine that he probably thought that so extreme and revolutionary a suggestion as has been mentioned by the hon. Member who has just spoken would much more probably have been met with rather violent opposition from this side than by acquiescence. As regards the simple question of procedure, which my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) and Oxford (Captain Bourne) have particularly dealt with, I quite agree with them that if you are going to impose taxation in the present Bill to operate in future years, then certainly a Financial Resolution is necessary and proper, and to that extent the Government have undoubtedly acted properly in proposing it. But I cannot help feeling that supposing the thing could have been done in the same way in which, I am told, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did it, without a Finance Resolution, surely this Government are not such great sticklers for Parliamentary procedure that they would have thought it necessary to put down a Resolution. Consequently, I cannot help feeling that the fact that they have thought it necessary to put down this Resolution seems to show that there must be something rather more in it than perhaps at first meets the eye.

I do not know whether this is exactly a point of Order, or whether it is one that I can properly ask you, Mr. Speaker, but it would greatly help the House to understand the position if we could be told this: Suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had desired to put the valuation proposals into ads Finance Bill without at the same time proposing a tax, would that have been in order? Could that have been done? I do not know whether that is a point you can answer on the spur of the moment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER

I should deeline to give a definite Ruling on such a hypothetical case. It is a question that would open up considerable discussion.

Sir O'NEILL

I did not expect for a moment that yon would, without any notice, have been able to give a Ruling on that point. I feel that the position is rather this, that the Government have discovered that they cannot insert the valuation Clauses into this year's Finance Bill, unless at the same time they make provision for a tax, and that that is the reason why they are adopting this procedure. The Chancellor has given reasons why they did not do as last year, and bring in a separate valuation Bill. I think that that was a proper way of doing it. There should first have been a valuation Bill and then, when that was passed, and the machinery was ready, the Government could have imposed a tax operating for the year in which it was imposed. I cannot help feeling that it has been done in the way now suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to facilitate something which the House of Commons would not be very willing, in ordinary circumstances, to help to get through.

A good deal has been said in previous speeches about the practice of confining the taxation proposals to the year to which they refer. It has been said that that practice has been departed from. Possibly it has, but I feel that that is a tremendously important principle in our financial procedure. If you look at the history of the financial procedure in the House of Commons and how it has grown up, you will find that the tendency has been to substitute annual taxes for fixed taxes. In the old days, for instance, the King used to be granted a civil list during the whole of his reign. That was the principle, and the whole constitutional struggle of Parliament has been to try to bring down the question of taxation to an annual question, and to make the taxes of the year operate for that year, and that year only. It is a good sound system of finance, but on the pure question of procedure, if the Government are determined to carry this thing through, I agree that it is the best way of doing it to put down this Motion. At the same time, I wish to enter a protest and a warning that the thing that they propose to do is not a good thing, and is contrary to the sound financial practice of the country.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I see no signs of activity on the bench opposite. The Government have shown such an extraordinary reticence in the Debates on the Budget, that I am rising for the purpose of asking that we may have some answer to the question which has been addressed with every courtesy to Ministers opposite by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). This is a point of some considerable interest, and it is a little discourteous of Ministers if they do not give us an answer to a very proper question. My hon. and gallant Friend asked whether under this proceeding it will be possible in the year in which the tax actually becomes operative to bring that tax into operation by a simple Clause in the Finance Bill, or whether a Financial Resolution will be necessary in that year? I hope that we may have an answer as to which course, in the opinion of the Govenment, is necessary.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) has been speculating as to the reasons why this particular procedure has been adopted. There is possibly one other explanation of the change in the Chancellor's view. I remember that last year, when he said that he was going to have a separate valuation Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at once got up and took exception to that course. He said, "I am afraid that if you have a separate valuation Bill, it will never get through; you ought to have the valuation Clauses as part of the Bill, and, as you cannot have a valuation without saying what you want it for, you should put in a token tax." There is so much agreement now between the Liberal Benches and the benches opposite, that possibly in the course of the conversations that havebeen taking place at Downing Street, this idea may have been pressed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer with such eloquence by the right hon. Gentleman, that he has not been able to resist it. If the Solicitor-General is to answer the question, perhaps he will answer another at the same time. I was a little intrigued to hear the Chancellor say just now that these proposals in regard to land valuation taxation formed an integral part of the finances of the present Budget—

Mr. SNOWDEN

Programme.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I misunderstood the Chancellor. I could not understand how the land taxation proposals could form any part of the finances of the Budget, seeing that they are not to produce any finance in this year.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps)

I am sorry if I appeared discourteous by not answering sooner, but I intended to answer. I feel, as a young Member of the House, that it is almost impudence to speak on any question of procedure. I understand, if the procedure proposed is adopted, that when the year comes for the tax to be levied, there will be no need of any Financial Resolution, and no need of any Clause in the Finance Act, because the date upon which the tax will be levied will be fixed by the Bill which will be passed this year. That will finally determine the matter, unless of course a subsequent Parliament at any time takes some steps to alter it.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS

I find in this House and other places that when the experts more or less agree, the position of the ordinary Member is probably in some danger. I wan confirmed in my opinion by the last statement that we have just heard. We are told that there will be no need to put this tax in the Budget or in a Financial Resolution. By passing this Motion, the House of Commons will lay down that on some future occasion a tax may be levied by the House without that tax being put into the Finance Bill or without a Financial Resolution—a tax about which we know nothing or how it will operate. This Motion is very bad practice from the point of view of the position of the ordinary Member. It is essential that the House of Commons should remember that they are representing the interests of the taxpayers of the country.

No precedent has been given for this Motion. Directly we set up a precedent of this kind, whatever the experts may say about it never being put into practice again, you invariably get a Government next year doing the same thing. Such a Motion will allow the imposition of a tax of the nature of which we know nothing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it will not be in operation until 1933, but this Motion will give power to a future Government to lay down a tax without anyone knowing any details about it. There is nothing in the Motion to tell us in which year the tax will be imposed. I am only an ordinary Member of Parliament, but the ordinary Member has the greatest right on these occasions to object to the rules of the House being altered in such a way that the taxpayers can. be burdened without knowing what the burdens are. I protest against this Motion, which I believe to be against the best interest of the House of Commons.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

We have become very familiar with a phrase about the anticipation of Budget secrets. The whole point of the Budget is that it is an annual affair, and I suggest that the method proposed in this Motion is an anticipation of Budget secrets for at least two years ahead. I should like the learned Solicitor-General to express his view on that point. If we allow a procedure of this kind, we shall be able to lay out in advance, perhaps for 10 years, the line of future taxation. This is an entirely new form of tax, and it is against the precedents to allow an anticipation of Budget secrets to be included in this year's Budget. We know why this device is being resorted to, but it is contrary to practice to put future taxes into the Finance Bill of this year.

Resolved, That, notwithstanding anything in the established practice of this House to the contrary, provision may be made in the Finance Bill of the present Session for giving effect to any Resolution which may be passed in the Committee of Ways and Means, and agreed to by this House for imposing a tax on Land Values although the tax is not to come into operation until a subsequent financial year.